This week: Is it really Bill's world, and must we live in it?

Microsoft indisputedly dominates the operating system market. They are seeking to do the same with the Internet and ALL productivity software. The Gang from Redmond has just been hit with another in a long line of anti-trust lawsuits for their well-documented attempts to crush competing software firms. Does a software monopoly spell trouble for consumers and businesses that invest heavily in productivity software? Do you use Microsoft products because they're the best or because they're the most readily available? How can consumers and businesses fight the MS juggernaut and ensure competition and quality products?

See what other Tripod members said.

And see how members responded to the last survey about investing in Apple.

For past survey results, check our survey archive.

Work & Money survey questions are updated every Wednesday.

---

formicacid: Monopolies are detrimental to the consumer. Someone already decided that and passed laws to that effect. MS is verging on a monopoly, and is therefore detrimental to the consumer. This besides putting out products that do not meet the users needs. Seriously, how many of MS Word's functions do you really need? And how much extra RAM do those functions take?

It's good to have big companies so that they can afford to research new technologies, but once those companies want to rule the world, something's wrong. We've always lived in a world of choices, we vote for more than one party, etc. Why should we have only one OS, only one Word Processor?

We dont need one company; we need one format. I can work from one computer running SunOS 5.4 to another running Linux with no difficulty or loss in content, and I can open up a GIF in Photoshop and have the same file as I get in JPEGView. Can I open a WordPerfect file in Word and get the same result? (Actually, I dont know; haven't been able to use Word since I tried to upgrade via the CD MS sent me.) If all text and spreadsheet file formats were the same, then all programs could open them with ease and the consumer could decide which program to use based on which functions she/he likes best. Let's tell the corp-people this is what we want.

JennieK: I met the men from Microsoft at Glasgow's Intersection convention last year, where they were supposed to be launching Windows '95. They were really sweet guys, and offered me digitalized pictures they were taking at the convention for the web magazine I was writing for. Just one problem -- they couldn't get their software to work. We stood around all day trying to find the faults, but basically, Windows is just a bit shit, really; if the people who make it can't get it to work, I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

Lennin: Simple answer: They just have to make their products bug-free. And all in all, just make them a whole lot less complicated.

Jimsan: Afraid? No. Annoyed? Yes--particularly by their lack of product support service and their adherence to the creed of market share at all costs: quick development of mediocre products. After all, which document preparation program do you prefer--Microsoft Word or or Adobe Framemaker? (I suppose you get what you pay for).

gustavo: Yes, Microsoft is a problem for all of us. I don't like it. Think about quality and then see MS products: They don't know anything about that. I use Macintoshes, PCs and Suns. And, believe me: MS products are the worst. I have to use poor software just because it is, unfortunately, the only one available at a lot of companies -- but if I can, I prefer not to use it. Why, with that army of programmers, they can't do anything fine?

meganc: I always fear hugely successful mediocrity.

CapnDick: The MS monopoly is most definitely here and real and a true detriment to both the individual and the corporate consumer. The corporations suffer, since many times software is bought by corporate zombies who don't know the difference between Word and WordPerfect and buy only what the equally zombie-like micro-sales people tell them to get. And since Microsoft apparently offers incentives to dealers to push thier stuff ....

Dickj: How can I complain about Microsoft when I can't come close to building what they can. Excuse me? Where is the alternative? Give it to me. I'll buy it if it's better, cheaper, and I can't make it! Belly-aching seems to come from the gut of the competition.

marar: Monopoly is not good, whether we're discussing Microsoft or another company. I agree that Microsoft products are lousy. But they are the only ones available. With Apple still not able to make an impact (due to lack of software and pricing problems), we are forced to use Microsoft products. As one member has already pointed out, what we need is a common platform. There must be hardware as well as software compatibility. Whichever software is good, we will use it.

intrigue1: I'm upset with MS. So is everyone with a mind. But ... why not also be upset with IBM. They were in a position to challange MS but failed miserably. Use Netscape. Don't view NBC, MSNBC, or Slate.

lonuv: DickJ, there will always be people like you who are satisfied with the status quo but some of us prefer to discuss alternatives and let our disastifaction be known. Bill Gates is not a creative genius, he is an opportunist. He would have no reason to make things better if there was no one challenging him out there. You probably can't build a car either but would you be satisfied if Yugo had a monopoly on the market because of their business tactics? Bill Gates is evil. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to glean that from the many bios on the man.

formicacid: Know your options!

As far as operating systems go, there's more versions of Unix than I can name; check out Linux (can't beat the price). Then there's IBM's OS/2 and Apple's MacOS. New potential shows up all the time, such as the BeBox.

For word processing:
check out Corel's WordPerfect, Claris's ClarisWorks, and Nisus's NisusWriter.
My personal favorites for html-ing are Unix's Pico and Apple's SimpleText.

For web browsers, there's Netscape's Navigator (did I really have to add that URL?), CERN's Arena, and even Lynx (try some speed tests, Explorer v. Lynx!).

The list goes on... this is by no means complete; I only wanted to show that there are options other than MS.

If you're afraid of fighting MS all by yourself, check out Paranoia's voice against Microsoft and Chris's MS Page.
You're not alone in your fear of MS.

agazzano: As an intern for a company that actually makes computers, I would have to say that MS is big and definitely has stuff on the way to make them grow even more, but I do not have a doubt that they will eventually meet their match and even fizzle out. Technlogy is so booming, there is bound to pop up yet another brainiac to present something better...

tyeoman: Perhaps MS is a victim of its own success and is more to be pitied than reviled. Business tends to reward what is "good enough" -- not what is excellent. MS is, above everything else, a successful business corporation. (And, too, they do seem to "get it right" on about version 3 -- so, if you can wait long enough...)

Paddy: Microsoft's products are perhaps the worst in the market and there is no dispute about it in any quarters. The point is firms such as Apple and IBM had all the products and resources to effectively challenge and even perhaps neutralize Microsoft's market. The fact that they couldn't do it speaks volumes of Bill Gates' evil genius; perhaps no different from Rockefellers in the oil industry.

anjank: The domination of a market by a small number of mega-corporations is difficult to regard as positive for the consumer. Fewer producers mean fewer innovative products, and those will come at higher prices for the consumer. Consider Microsoft's attempt to purchase Quicken -- you mean to say that they, with all their software engineers and designers really couldn't come up with something better than Quicken? Or was it that it was simply easier/faster to use their Billions, and purchase the competiton outright? That is NOT free-market capitalism.

Flameage: The folks of Microsoft are happily feeding off the ignorance of laymen. It is a well known and proven fact that those who do not know better are willing to be led. Microsoft spends millions of dollars bombarding laymen with messages of "we are the best" and the ignorant happily follow. Instead of spending millions of dollars on lies they should spend it on quality assurance. I know a person who sold their Windows 95 to a friend for $5 and a bottle of Jack Daniels. Needless to say, the poor sucker who bought it regretted his purchase, uninstalled it after 2 months, and threw the whole thing in the bin. The person with the Jack Daniels got the better deal.

kaelfi: The computer industry (hard & software) has a vested interest (to put it mildly!) in our feelings of stupidity and our ignorance of the workings of these "tools". They are just that, a way to reach beyond capabilities, a way to become information "rich." However, the truth is that we are all capable of understanding and manipulating the medium. If you want to know if some system, hardware or software, will work, simply hook it up, and throw the switch! If it works, GREAT! If not, you learned something, and seldom do systems totally "break" (asuming you back-up regularly, and you observe simple rules of electrical circuitry -- don't do this underwater kids!!!) and chances are you will be further ahead than before.
Microsoft can fall in the same way that Big Blue went, sort of like the way a sports team becomes over-confident and blows the big one. Bill Gates was once a fat zit-faced dweeb who made a couple of key moves at the right time. His current image is the result of spending the equivalent of the G.N.P. of a small country -- not the result of any technical expertise. We might just see him at 200+ pounds , crying in his beer someday...

cypher: "Good artists copy, great artists steal." Microsoft is only a good artist; every time a quality product begins to threaten Microsoft's market dominance (ie. Navigator, MacOS, Wordperfect, etc.) they copy it feature for feature, tweak the interface, double the hardware requirements, and drive the other folks out of business with their marketing clout. The problem with this is that nothing new ever comes out of Redmond, Washington -- so once they have crushed everyone else, what's left? No new ideas, nothing to steal, then all we have is an industry full of shoddy products, running on massivly overpowered computers that only take advantage of 1/8th of thier capabilities to maintain compatibility with two decade-old hardware, because MS didn't want to lose that market share.

gbp3: It really kills me that everyone complains so much about Microsoft. PC owners have been complaining for years about the difficulty of operating PCs -- Microsoft has made that easier. For years, PC owners have complained about the lack of standards -- Microsoft and a host of other companies are generating a lot of open standards to fix this clear breach in organized computing.
Ever since Steven Jobs stole the GUI from the researchers at Xerox PARC and made the Mac, Apple has had full control over every aspect of the Mac -- hardware, manufacturing, resell, software, comptible applications from other companies, OS releases (or lack of them). Why doesn't anyone complain about that?
Microsoft makes application software and so do a lot of other companies. They make it well and have brought more stability to the PC world. Look at Win95 -- they could have told everyone to get a new PC, but modified their software to accept everything instead.
Computing is becoming more of an open environment. Microsoft (and Bill Gates has even admitted this) has to play in the open arena as well or they will wither and die like Macintosh. PC owners should be glad that there is a stabilizing force in the PC market that still has to cower to the masses, to hardware manufacturers, and to other developers. If you think that they can just buy them up and absorb the app you are very misguided.
Look at the Bell Companies. Bell invested billions in their infrastructure, only to have the government take it away and give it to others. Years and many discontinued competing technologies later, we have made a telecommunications free-for-all in which, inevitably, the consumer will suffer. How is that beneficial? The strong will survive -- but you have to wait for the battle to be won by one or two large companies.

tknights: It doesn't matter if MS becomes a monopoly. If their software doesn't meet the standards, people will look elsewhere for better software. For example, I wasn't pleased with the MS command.com in MS dos 6.x so I switched over to 4dos.com it was that easy. I didn't like MS stuff so I switched. LIke with WWW. I don't like Explorer so I use Netscape.

ae858: I loathe and detest Microsoft. Look at this viscious circle: MS puts out new OS; software companies put out new apps for new OS; hardware companies get rich selling us new motherboards, RAM chips, and hard drives for the supposedly "better" (i.e. resource-hungry) software; then MS puts out a new OS. Where is the poor little consumer, who just wants to surf the net, print out a resume or play a game? IN THE POORHOUSE!!!

levesque: Bill Gates needs to respond to customer problems rather than being so worried about launching Windows NT. There are still improvements badly needed in Win95. Customer support is nonexistant -- whatever happened to "the customer is always right"?

BaxterTpug: I have to support MAC/OS, HP-Unix, Sun Solaris, Sun OS, Windows, DOS, Windows NT, OS/2. MAC/OS is the easiest to support. Microsoft always releases their products before they're ready. They manipulate the media to hype their software before the product is even in alpha testing. Windows95 is a prime example. Why does the government not stop this monopoly?

Saulm: I think that Microsoft is stupid and greedy in trying to get a monopoly in operating systems, business applications, and now the internet. They should lay off a bit.
I bet Mr. Gates' favorite game is Monopoly, especially when he has hotels on all the sets of properties except the utilities.
Anyway to help out real web browsers, buy Netscape, or visit Microsoff Internet Inhaler!

shill: While I won't claim that Bill Gates is Satan or evil incarnate, I will agree that Microsoft's monopoly on the public is unfortunate. I think the solution has to come from Microsoft's competitors, not from Microsoft itself. Microsoft's one asset is its public relations; what we really need to see is a massive public relations push from the "alternatives": IBM & OS/2, Apple & MacOS, and the like. That, plus quality products (which Microsoft seems to be in short supply of), should do the trick. Imagine a coalition of computer companies participating in an anti-Microsoft campaign--wouldn't it be great? Not likely, but it'd be pretty neat.
Personally, I boycott all Microsoft products, and will not even use their products when they are freely available, except when forced to. The shareware and freeware base for Macintosh computers, in particular, is so large that one can get along pretty well without buying one piece of commercial software after the computer has been bought. Finally, to answer the one dissenting opinion I see here: the difference between Macintosh and Microsoft, and tehir respective "monopolies", is that Apple only ever tried to "monopolize" the Macintosh market. Microsoft is trying to monopolize the entire computer industry. Big difference!